100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate 

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate

Show as in math or show as in a physical demonstration?

If math, it is quite simple, assuming there is only one significant body (i.e. one body of a significant mass)
The acceleration due to gravity is given by a=GM/r^2.
The acceleration required to orbit in a circle around an object is given by a=v^2/r.
To orbit, these need to be equal, i.e.:
GM/r^2=v^2/r
Thus GM/r=v^2.

Plug in the numbers and you get an orbit.

Showing it physically, there are countless satellites in orbit around Earth.
If you mean a small model then you need to go outside Earth's Roche limit to even stand a change.
You can't have it supported anywhere near Earth, it needs to be in free fall.
To explain why:
Lets say you have Earth of mass M, and a smaller object of mass m, a distance of R away from the centre of Earth, with an even smaller object trying to orbit it at a distance of r. (capitals for Earth, lower case for smaller object).
Also, lets assume that R>>r, and thus R-r~=r~=R+r.
Thus the acceleration from Earth's gravity on the tiny object will be:
a=GM/R^2 (technically GM/(R-r)^2 at closest approach, or with R+r at furthest)
From the smaller object, it will be:
a=Gm/r^2.

In order to stand a chance at orbiting, M/R^2 needs to be much smaller than m/r^2
Putting in M=6E+24 kg and R= 6.4E+6 m, and m=1000 kg (as an example, we can discuss other masses later) then for these to just be equal you need:
M/R^2=m/r^2, thus r^2=mR^2/M=8.26E-5 m, i.e. 82 um.
I am yet to see an object with a mass of 1000 kg which fits into a sphere of radius 80 microns, and it can't orbit inside another object.
Even if it would work there, you wouldn't easily be able to see the orbit.

We can consider other masses and sizes by considering orbiting just above the surface, so r is the radius of the object.
Then m=4/3*pi*r^3*p, where p is the density.
This then gives (for the acceleration from Earth and the object to be equal):
M/R^2=(4/3*pi*r^3*p)/r^2=4/3*pi*r*p
And thus r=M*3/(R^2*4*pi*p)

The most dense object is only around 20 g/ml, or 20 000 kg/m^3.
Thus, using that, we end up with r=~1700 km, comparable to the moon.
But that would already take you to space, and be basically impossible to support.

So you can't have it supported above Earth.

So your next option is in free fall.
Now the difference in R-r and R is important.

Again, lets consider the object just orbiting on the surface.

(The G constant repeatedly appears, so I am going to ignore it for now, it wont change the results)

Now, we have a due to the object of  4/3*pi*r*p still.
But now from Earth it is more complex.
We have the acceleration of the object of am= M/R^2
We have the acceleration of the orbiting object ao=M/(R-r)^2.
So the relative acceleration (or the tidal acceleration) is at=M/(R-r)^2-M/R^2
=R^2*M/(R^2*(R-r)^2)-(R-r)^2*M/(R^2*(R-r)^2)
=M*(R^2-(R-r)^2)/(R^2*(R-r)^2)
=M*(R^2-R^2+2*R*r-r^2)/(R^2*(R-r)^2)
=M*(2*R*r-r^2)/(R^2*(R-r)^2)
=M*(r*(2*R-r))/(R^2*(R-r)^2)

This now looks big and complicated and ugly, but now we can make the approximation again (as we don't end up with a 0 answer), i.e. R-r~=R and 2*R-r~=2*R
This gives:
at=M*(r*2*R)/(R^2*R^2)
=2*M*r/R^3

So to not have the tidal forces tear the object apart (still not even orbitting it), we need this to be less than m/r^2=4/3*pi*r*p.
Again, for equality:
2*M*r/R^3=4/3*pi*r*p
M/R^3=2/3*pi*p
R^3=3*M/(2*pi*p).
R=cubrt(3*M/(2*pi*p))

Again, using osmium for a best case scenario, we end up with R=~5000 km.
So once again, you need to go into space.

So, assuming gravity is true, you cannot have an object orbit another without going to space, at which point you may as well just orbit Earth as a satellite.

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate

No, you claim is nothing like "100% PROOF GRAVITY ISN'T REALITY"!
What makes your claim ridiculous is that there is a humungously large interference from the inescapable gravitation of the earth.

But I answered that in Re: my challenge to the globe, want to debunk flat earth « Reply #7 on: Today at 11:51:54 AM »
and in Re: my challenge to the globe, want to debunk flat earth « Reply #11 on: Today at 02:10:40 PM ».

Are you one of these smart alecks that claims that if you can't do something on your kitchen table, that it's untrue?
Well,
Flat Earth Theory claims that:

• The 50 km diameter sun circles 5000 km above the earth. Some mechanism is needed for its support.
  
  
• the 50 km diameter sun always appears to have an apparent size of about 0.5°, no matter where it is in the sky.
  

That's just the start! Demonstrate these on your kitchen table.

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

It has been shown, by countless people.
You ignoring that doesn't magically mean it hasn't.

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

The Cavendish experiment.  We did it in aeronautics club in high school. 

Mike 

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

There isn't "a problem showing" gravitation "with science", but it does not have to be on your terms.

If gravity is reality, i CHALLENGE YOU to show the world how one object will orbit another object using gravity, if gravity is reality then this should be simple and easy to show with a science experiment.. once gravity is proven in reality we can end the debate

Do you mean something like any of the satellites currently orbiting the moon, Mars, Saturn, Jupiter, etc.?

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

I can't teach a dog to do calculus, but that doesn't mean calculus is not real.  Gravity has been shown in dozens of different ways without a problem.

The fact that you don't understand those demonstrations, or what "100% proof" means, is not the same as the demonstrations failing. 

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

People will fall for anything these days.

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

Oh, you want it shown with science! What about BIG SCIENCE?

Here are some reports of modern  BIG SCIENCE experiments in the lab:
            Scientific American, Puzzling Measurement of "Big G" Gravitational Constant Ignites Debate [Slide Show]
            Phys.org, New measure of gravitational constant higher than expected
            Nature, Precision measurement of the Newtonian gravitational constant using cold atoms - and not always will heavy lead balls!

But if you don't trust these "big science" experiments, here are some simple demonstrations showing that mass attracts mass.
Sure, I know you pooh-poohed these because they might have been this and they might have been that, tough cheese, others might know better than you!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gravitation has been measured quite accurately numerous times and demonstrated in ways that can be easily seen many many times.
Here's a few:

The Cavendish experiment and G, Genevieve Roeder-Hensley

Cavendish Experiment Revisited, Andrew Bennett

Cavendish experiment, proving mass derived gravity, flat earth debunker

The Cavendish Experiment at Bishop O'Connell High School, Inside Science

DeHaan Cavendish Balance, James DeHaan

Universal Gravitation Demonstration, Nick Merrill

Plenty more where they came from.

Many of these can easily be repeated in any very sheltered location, free from breezes and stray electrostatic and magnetic fields - a basement is ideal.

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

Do a study (ie science) of what happens when you jump off of a tall building.

Quote from: andrewchikoski on February 24, 2018, 10:24:21 AM

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

Do a study (ie science) of what happens when you jump off of a tall building.

Do you mean a practical experiment with himself as the subject?

Quote from: andrewchikoski on February 24, 2018, 10:24:21 AM

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

Do a study (ie science) of what happens when you jump off of a tall building.

  lol there is no need to jump out a window density and buoyancy, im obviously more dense then the air so i would fall. but even better im just positive and negative atoms which means im basically just electrical  and the earth is a giant electrical magnet so im betting id be magnetically pulled to the earth but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

density and buoyancy

Density alone explains nothing.
Buoyancy relies upon gravity.
No gravity, no buoyancy.

im obviously more dense then the air so i would fall.

Yes, you are clearly denser than air.
But why should that make you fall?
Why shouldn't it make you fly sideways or upwards, or just sit there?

A good example of the application of different densities for separation is that of a centrifuge.
When spinning the more dense objects are pushed to the outside.
Notice how it isn't just down now?

Using density for separation requires a force/acceleration, such as gravity or the apparent centrifugal force.

It doesn't just magically do it itself.

but even better im just positive and negative atoms which means im basically just electrical

No, because for the most part you are electrically neutral.

the earth is a giant electrical magnet so im betting id be magnetically pulled to the earth

No you wouldn't.
Positive and negative charges move in opposite directions in magnetic fields.
If this was the case, using static electricity, you should be able to have objects have a massive increase or decrease in weight, including yourself.
Instead, the weight change is negligible.

So that clearly isn't it.

but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

You are the one that seems to be dreaming about whatever magic garbage you can use to pretend to replace the very real gravity.

lol there is no need to jump out a window density and buoyancy, im obviously more dense then the air so i would fall. but even better im just positive and negative atoms which means im basically just electrical  and the earth is a giant electrical magnet so im betting id be magnetically pulled to the earth but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

No, while the "earth is a giant electrical magnet", its strength at the surface is quite weak and can just drag a compass needle around if the bearing has very little friction.

I suggest you learn a bit about these things before you go too far. "They" do say that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

If I were you I wouldn't waste any money on "betting you'd be magnetically pulled to the earth" because the human body is weakly diamagnetic. This means that it is repelled very slightly by any direction magnetic field.

Diamagnetic Levitation

Many common materials such as water, wood, plants, animals, diamonds, fingers, etc. are usually considered to be non-magnetic but in fact, they are very weakly diamagnetic. Diamagnets repel, and are repelled by a strong magnetic field. The electrons in a diamagnetic material rearrange their orbits slightly creating small persistent currents which oppose the external magnetic field. Two of the strongest diamagnetic materials are graphite and bismuth.

The forces created by diamagnetism are extremely weak, millions of times smaller than the forces between magnets and such common ferromagnetic materials as iron. However, in certain carefully arranged situations, the influence of diamagnetic materials can produce startling effects such as levitation.

It was proved in 1842 that it is impossible to stably levitate any static array of magnets by any arrangement of fixed magnets and gravity. However, the addition of diamagnetic materials makes such levitation possible. The July 22 Nature paper, Magnetic Levitation at your fingertips, describes two configurations where diamagnetic materials are used to stabilize the levitation of a magnet in the field of a fixed lifting magnet.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
If a stronger diamagnetic material such as graphite is used for vertical stabilization, the levitation can be accomplished with common permanent magnets in a small hand held device. This type of levitator may find use as a frictionless bearing and is a candidate to replace servo levitators for some applications.

Earlier A. Geim has demonstrated the suspension of living things such as frogs in a strong magnetic field. The diamagnetic repulsion of the living tissue exactly balances gravity throughout the body. This makes it feasible to investigate the effects of weightlessness on small bodies without going into space.

Read more in: Diamagnetic Levitation

But, what clinches the matter, and you refuse to even acknowledge this, is that gravity acts on all mass equally with no change being detectable due to the electrical or magnetic properties of that material.

So no, your 100% PROOF against GRAVITY simply ISN'T REALITY, so I suggest that you stop dreaming and face reality.

Quote from: smokified on February 27, 2018, 03:46:39 PM

Quote from: andrewchikoski on February 24, 2018, 10:24:21 AM

if gravity is reality then you shouldn't have a problem showing it with science

Do a study (ie science) of what happens when you jump off of a tall building.

  lol there is no need to jump out a window density and buoyancy, im obviously more dense then the air so i would fall. but even better im just positive and negative atoms which means im basically just electrical  and the earth is a giant electrical magnet so im betting id be magnetically pulled to the earth but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

So you don't like the idea of doing the Cavendish experiment?

Mike

density and buoyancy

Density isn't a force, it's only a measurement of how much stuff is in a certain amount of space. Buoyancy can't work without gravity. It's in the equation.

im obviously more dense then the air so i would fall.

Yes you would, but why would you fall down? What force is pulling or pushing down on you? (Hint: Starts with a g)

but even better im just positive and negative atoms which means im basically just electrical  and the earth is a giant electrical magnet so im betting id be magnetically pulled to the earth but hey you keep dreaming about that magic fake gravity

That's not how it works. If that were the case, any magnet would stick to you, but I can guarantee no magnets stick to you. Iron magnets, the most common, attract only a few metals: iron, nickel, and cobalt (and some rare-earth metals but they're not important). The only one in your body is the iron in your blood, but again, even a powerful iron magnet, when against your skin, will not stick to your skin, because you're not magnetic.

A: look at the moon

B: Grab a telescope look at other moons

C: Launch a cube sat that you can track 5-20 000 usd

The moon

There is this thing called 'The Great Attractor' in the Laniakea Supercluster that is using 'gravity', (known as incredibly weak force) but is pulling many galaxies from as much as 2,365,182,618,145,200,000,000km away if not more. Keep in mind our galaxy weighs in at about 700ish billion solar masses with one solar mass weighing ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. So times that by 700 billion and that's just our galaxy which is not that big comparatively speaking

And they tell us gravity is weak. HA!

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

There is this thing called 'The Great Attractor' in the Laniakea Supercluster that is using 'gravity', (known as incredibly weak force) but is pulling many galaxies from as much as 2,365,182,618,145,200,000,000km away if not more. Keep in mind our galaxy weighs in at about 700ish billion solar masses with one solar mass weighing ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. So times that by 700 billion and that's just our galaxy which is not that big comparatively speaking

And they tell us gravity is weak. HA!

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

Gravity IS weak. Just take a look at the Gravitational Constant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Though, it's only weak for objects with a small mass. The larger your mass, the stronger gravity becomes. When we talk about masses on a galaxy-scale, then gravity is incredibly strong.

not that big comparatively speaking

What are you smoking?

There is this thing called 'The Great Attractor' in the Laniakea Supercluster that is using 'gravity', (known as incredibly weak force) but is pulling many galaxies from as much as 2,365,182,618,145,200,000,000km away if not more. Keep in mind our galaxy weighs in at about 700ish billion solar masses with one solar mass weighing ~2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. So times that by 700 billion and that's just our galaxy which is not that big comparatively speaking

And they tell us gravity is weak. HA!

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

There may be something else at play, such as you being a troll, but gravity is what most people suspect.

Electrostatic forces, while being quite strong, require a charge separation, which is quite difficult to maintain.
At the macroscopic level, most things are neutral and those which are charged have very small charges.
Nuclear forces are even shorter range than electrostatics.
Magnetism relies upon dipoles which smooth out to nothing at large ranges.

Gravity on the other hand relies upon mass where you can easily have a lot, all providing a significant force.

A weak force per unit mass * a lot of mass, gives a very large force.

So yes, gravity is weak, and only becomes dominant at large scales.


Another way of saying it is that protons, electrons and so on have very small masses and large charges.

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

And what makes you think that? Have done the calculations or are you going to claim that it doesn't seem right?

Quote

not that big comparatively speaking

What are you smoking?

The Milky Way is not a big galaxy by galactic standards. Andromeda is much bigger and there are bigger ones still.

The galaxy eloquently called IC1101 has a mass of about 100 trillion stars for example. Kind of makes our galaxy look like a dwarf

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 07:54:35 PM

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

And what makes you think that? Have done the calculations or are you going to claim that it doesn't seem right?

You mean, what makes me think I know that. And you people wouldn't believe me if I told you. You haven't before, why would you now?

The Milky Way is not a big galaxy by galactic standards. Andromeda is much bigger and there are bigger ones still.

The galaxy eloquently called IC1101 has a mass of about 100 trillion stars for example. Kind of makes our galaxy look like a dwarf

But it's still insanely massive. It's a fucking galaxy, I don't know how else to put it.

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 08:45:15 PM

The Milky Way is not a big galaxy by galactic standards. Andromeda is much bigger and there are bigger ones still.

The galaxy eloquently called IC1101 has a mass of about 100 trillion stars for example. Kind of makes our galaxy look like a dwarf

But it's still insanely massive. It's a fucking galaxy, I don't know how else to put it.

Big from our perspective sure, but from a universes perspective, we would like a dot

Kind of like when you compare the size of our sun to VY Canis Majoris. You think Earth is big, but then you see Jupiter. You think that's huge but then you look at the Sun. You think that's enormous, but then you see  Betelgeuse star. You think that words can not describe how massive that star is and then there is VY Canis Majoris.

The same is true of galaxies. Ours is quite humble in size

Quote from: rabinoz on March 05, 2018, 08:43:13 PM

Quote from: Shifter on March 05, 2018, 07:54:35 PM

There is something else at play here and gravity is not what anyone suspects.

And what makes you think that? Have done the calculations or are you going to claim that it doesn't seem right?

You mean, what makes me think I know that. And you people wouldn't believe me if I told you. You haven't before, why would you now?

All we know is that you are a "Great Pretender" who has given us not reason to believe that you are doing any more than trying to make yourself look smart.

Big from our perspective sure, but from a universes perspective, we would like a dot

Kind of like when you compare the size of our sun to VY Canis Majoris. You think Earth is big, but then you see Jupiter. You think that's huge but then you look at the Sun. You think that's enormous, but then you see  Betelgeuse star. You think that words can not describe how massive that star is and then there is VY Canis Majoris.

The same is true of galaxies. Ours is quite humble in size

Yes, sure. I don't get the point you're trying to make though. Are you saying our galaxy is too small to have sufficient gravity?